in my opinion, if you scanned every peroxide thread avail for growback details, or any other algae treatment method for growback details regarding bryopsis or GHA it will come down to this if a large sample is considered-
ID-what we refer to as bryopsis and GHA encompasses at least 10 different species and each species has different morphology, holdfast systems, and time set in to work its way into calcified anchor areas. porosity of the substrate in question matters greatly, its easier for clear reasons to see why systems employing nonporous base rock or marco rock (not particularly porous) have easier kills and low to no grow back vs tonga rock, for ex. what works in one tank for 1/10 of the possible type of invader simply may range for the other 9 possibilities
nutrient sink variances among tanks, growback is lessened if nutrients are under control properly
contact time and % strength variances, people who use 3% are using the weakest peroxide option available yet it comprises 99% of the work shown. when higher % are used, initial kill is amplified and growback isn't, which is why I only use 35% back when I needed it (used with lab safety measures, a blinding agent if not careful)
a test area in the tank before treating the whole tank is the best move, to chart what a spot does before whole tank work is expended. lastly, consider one off evaluation, imagine inputting a bag of gfo one time into a system with po4 issues and never changing/refreshing it, it would allow growback as well, every algae mode we take is some form of a repeat. if growback is too much after a dedicated run, that's a fair reevaluation point.
invasions that are allowed to set in have repeats required when using 3%, and in the case of porous rocks or varying species invading we might even have to consider +10% strength mixes if this is the chosen mode. The single best way to control any GHA or bryopsis invasion is to act on the first spot that pops up, keepers typically wait till mass coverage to directly act. all the grazers mentioned are the preventers of return, not the initial removers. that would imply leaving it in the tank to make them the removers...perpetuating the invasion cycle.
Agreed fully on natural grazers, fully. that's how nature controls these minor patch invasions, and we are missing them in our tanks. Easy to recommend, but the real challenge is finding a bryopsis cure thread where just 10 or more tanks are cured with them. Being able to demo in one place what works is beyond hard to do, regarding true brushy bryopsis invasions anyway. For any grazer recommended, we can google a thread where it ignored the patch for example. So many other treatment options exist beyond peroxide, tech m has more pull than anything and that's an easy direct paste applied to an external test patch, no its not dependent on a contaminant we get easy patch burns with it currently and commonly. mg is part of the photosynthesis pathway and it isn't a terrible leap to think that oversaturating it might cause a backup somehow, fair mechanism for peroxide burning as well...something has to explain the initial susceptibility algae show vs other tank inhabitants. the main benefit of peroxide is the safety in attempting to see how an invader responds, if it does then its a pretty safe mode to employ, we show.
that's growback~
b